Aquadream said:
...Can you explain to me My Lord how so different is high GH from salinity?
Err..Well I'll explain this my unrepentant subject. It's clear to me that you're missing some very basic clues about chemical processes and definitions occurring in a tank. that explains why you are limited to regurgitation of the rubbish on websites brimming with ignorance.
GH by definition is the measure of Calcium (Ca++) and Magnesium (Mg++) ion content
only. Salinity is the measure of Sodium (Na+) content
only. This is of a profound difference and has such significance that bodies of water the world are defined fundamentally by whether they are saline or fresh. I mean, I would have thought that obvious by now. Do you think all salts are the same? Do you imagine, for example, that a fish from seawater can survive in lake Malawi, which is high in Magnesium and Calcium salts? Each of these chemical have unique properties and behaviors, and while they may share some similarities you cannot assume that the effect of one ion species is identical to another. When an ionic salt like NaCl is added to water, the ions from the salt introduced will attract the water. This has the tendency to decrease the weak affinity of non-polar CO2 molecules to water and drive the CO2 out of the polar water. So really this is an sort of an electrolytic effect , and the Na+ ionic strength has a much greater influence than Magnesium or Calcium. of course, seawater does contain salts other than NaCl, however, their influence in the lowered CO2 solubility is dwarfed by that of NaCl. Even so, the solubility coefficient, K(o) of water at 26 deg.C, which has 40% salinity is .02771 moles per liter*atm while at the same temperature, the solubility of freshwater is .03307 moles per liter*atm - a 16% solubility loss from the freshwater value. At a 10% salinity K(o) rises to .03164 which is only a 4% falloff from freshwater.
The solubility of CO2 in tank water therefore is hugely influenced by pressure and temperature. The ionic strength of Magnesium and Calcium have a minuscule effect on CO2's solubility.
Aquadream said:
GH is formed by salts not by your cool management of your tank and if those salts are in high amounts there will be many problems for most aquatic plants.
See the previous response. GH is only a direct measurement of Ca/Mg, nothing more and nothing less. Solubility of CO2 has be measured and determined by people who get paid to know this stuff. You will not change reallity by wishing it were otherwise.
Aquadream said:
You are twisting your self so much in what seem to be academic gibberish that it is impossible for you to see how contradictive is your talk.
What I find twisted is that we live in 21st century, with access to information superhighway, where you yourself could easily find this information, but instead you choose willful ignorance.
Aquadream said:
Also you lack proper information regarding RO systems. ?he typical ratio is 4:1. If you have heard about permeate pumps those are designed to reduce that ratio to 0.8:1. It means for one liter of RO 0.8 liters of water lost in the canals.
I listed typical and generic rejection rates of off-the-shelf RO units. Is 4:1 an acceptable rejection rate? lowering the rejection rate then required a more complicated and expensive adaptation. this is a petty argument.
Aquadream said:
ceg4048 said:
Isn't proving a point the path to truth? Are you saying that people should just accept lies. The point that I am proving is that you don't need RO water to grow plants. I am not saying that you shouldn't use RO, only that you don't need to because there will not be a significant performance improvement in plant growth for the majority of popular plants.
Your truth is very subjective, design to serve your purpose. But let me tell you something. The world was here long before you and will be long after you. Nature works in ways that do not match your theories and it always going to be that way.
This sounds like more new age gibberish. How can my truth be subjective if I demonstrate specifically the cause and effect? How can it be subjective if I can disprove the things that you are saying and by showing positive results by doing the exact opposite of your theory? You need to get off you buttocks, read a few "academic" books and learn to understand as many aspects of nature as you can. It's the only way we are going to be able to save what's left of it, not by parroting new-age prattle.
Aquadream said:
Very well said, but you seriously need to look at your self here.
I have no idea what this means. I'm looking at my tank and it's just fine, thanks.
Aquadream said:
There are many things that were discovered by chance, but this is not science. It is only a chance. If you call the balance in nature dogma then you are in serious need of professional help.
More prattle. Show me data, facts and figures.
Aquadream said:
The best and wisest thing for you to do is to adapt to nature, not to try to adapt nature to you. It is not going to work, not for long anyway.
This is also meaningless prattle. If you don't understand the fundamentals of nature, like simple chemistry, how can you possible hope to copy it? You, like so many other deluded hobbyists focus on the wrong things. nature is infinitely complex and what you think might be an obvious fact may actually be an illusion. Only by studying the fundamentals can you possibly hope to make sense of even a small portion of it all. my tanks are healthy and clean, my fish feed well and sometimes breed in these waters and I can grow just about any plant you can grow (I'm still waiting for your list of plants that can't grow in hard water by the way) and i don't have algae. I haven't seen GDA, Rhizo, Clado, or Spyrogyra in 10 years. So what more proof do you want? How can it be "chance" if i can do this consistently? i don't have high water bills, i don't have complicated storage solutions for RO water. And I certainly do not have any difficulty dissolving CO2, that's for damn sure mate. So you'll need to come up with better arguments than "Nature knows best", or "how long can it last?"
As I mentioned, if the OP want to get RO I am not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that the OP doe not need to make RO a priority because there are lots of things he can do to improve his tank and to get good growth which have nothing to do with GH. There is also no need to fear PO4 and as stated by others, PO4 test kits aren't capable of telling you anything, least of all how much PO4 is in the water. So all of these things are false prophets and are unnecessary.
Cheers,